I've been hearing this same crap for almost 24 years now. No amount of investigations by any number of conservative lawmakers has made anything stick, nor has the right-wing media been able to do anything more than rumormonger about fringe innuendo and conspiracy schlock
The fact that the Clintons have abused their political office to enrich themselves massively is self-evident from their net worth and their control of the Clinton foundation. The fact that two smart lawyers controlling billions of dollars, with tons of connections and power, and with access to FBI and CIA files have been able to weasel out of being held legally responsible is hardly responsible.
Carr’s favorite targets are those zealots who believe so fervently in computers and data that they abandon common sense.
Carr sounds like a grumpy old man and an attention whore. Fine, to each their own. It's a free country, he can join the Amish if he likes. Many others will buy and use the technology we enjoy.
John Miano and Ian Smith write via The Daily Caller: "But if the H-1B program really is meant to correct the failings of our education system, as BigTech's new messaging-push implies, why is it importing so many people from India? According to results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a global standardized math and science assessment sponsored by the OECD, India scored almost dead last among the 74 countries tested.
Simple: American companies don't employ the average Indian, they employ the best from among 1 billion Indians. Furthermore, the smartest Indians actually go into the tech field, whereas the smartest Americans generally do not. That's why the PISA scores are pretty much irrelevant.
The real question is why Ian Smith himself is here; after all, he seems to be an Australian immigrant. We sure as hell have enough lawyers to begin with, and anybody who asks stupid questions like he does clearly isn't even much of a lawyer. So, why don't we start by kicking him out?
The terrorists have won 10-0. Thank you for submitting to the fear. Ordinary people will keep losig their rights, privacy, independence and possibilities.
During the Cold War, governments justified the same bullshit with other kinds of fear mongering. And while NSA spying on US citizens is certainly some cause for concern, economic and social policies represent far bigger infringements on our liberties: high taxes, regulations, restrictions on freedom of association, regulation of political speech, government-mandated monopolies, etc.
Your E-mail isn't secure in transit anyway, so using a "secure provider" really only helps with where your data is permanently archived; if you don't want it to be permanently archived on Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/Apple, just download it. Most clients can be set up to do that. If you really think GhostMail-like models give you something, you can always host an E-mail server on a virtual machine, or even more securely, on a RaspberryPi at home ("E-mail server in a closet", popularized by someone recently).
None of that is going to give you actual security. If you want that, you need to use end-to-end encryption with an E-mail client that supports that, and both ends of the conversation need to use it. There are plenty of those kinds of clients for pretty much any platform, so just look for those.
"A federal appellate court has ruled that government employees, such as Snowden, who signed privacy agreements can't profit from disclosing information without first obtaining agency approval,"
Hillary seems to have had no problem profiting from the information (and influence) she gained as a government employee, both in terms of donations to her "foundation" and in terms of speaking fees. But I suppose she just can do no wrong.
Again, so what? What point are you trying to make? As you point out, the tight regulations in Canada have led to an even higher concentration in the banking sector than in the US, therefore screwing over consumers even more and leading to even more monopolistic practices. The fact that monopolies and cartels can impose standards more effectively is little consolation, and if anything, more of an indication of a fundamental problem. In a healthy, competitive market, there is rarely a single, universal standard.
Well, no. There are dozens of banks and hundreds of bank-like financial institutions in Canada. Furthermore, Canadian businesses tend to be less regulated than US businesses.
So blame the Banks and the Greedy assholes that run those banks.
No, blame the politicians and government regulators that have given banks monopolies.
You know those financial regulations that are supposed to protect you? They ensure that creating a new bank is harder and more expensive than a manned flight to the moon.
This is not about the free wifi, it is about a private company monitoring public and private spaces with cameras (ir? and even backscatter xray for all we know...) with no regulatory oversight. This is the problem.
No regulatory oversight? LinkNYC is run according to NYC government rules, and the TOS that companies conform to whatever the NYC government allows them.
Furthermore, private companies, like everybody else, have a right to monitor public spaces, as well as private spaces that are ordinarily visible from their properties or private spaces. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way free societies work.
If you think it's cool to ask people to go die from heart disease,
We ask people to die from bullets in our wars. We ask people to die in car crashes for our entertainment on race tracks, and to deliver groceries. We ask people to die from experimental drugs they take as part of drug tests. We ask people to die from infections they acquire while nursing and healing the sick. We ask people to die from a lot of things.
And you know what? People say "yes", because many things in life are worth taking risks for.
Us space nutters prefer most work in space to be done robotically, with humans staying inside well-shielded habitats.
(Of course, us space nutters also believe that advances in stem cells, genetic engineering, and drugs will likely be able to address these effects, with no need for robotic surgery.)
Nevertheless, us space nutters would be willing to sacrifice a decade or two of life for the chance to go into space, explore, and contribute to human progress.
It's something Luddites and bourgeois sticks-in-the-mud like you will never understand.
By your logic, our founding fathers were all progressive/fascist.
Some certainly were. Some also were slave holders. Some were crooks. So, "the founding fathers were..." isn't something that is particularly convincing. Nevertheless, flawed as the founding fathers were, the Constitution they came up with is one of limited government and enumerated government powers, primarily national defense, international trade, and ensuring free trade among the states. Letting democratically elected governments make decisions about the private property of minorities was explicitly something the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
As stated before, a corporation is a legal fiction. It's not just an assembly of people. You don't seem to get that.
It's a "legal fiction" in the same sense that a "licensed taxi service" is a legal fiction. If you abolish taxi licensing, that doesn't mean that taxis go away, it means that you get more taxi-like services with a much wider range of terms of service. Likewise, if you abolish the legal fiction of corporations, it doesn't mean that people can't form corporations anymore, it means that they are less restricted in how they do so.
Your vision of government as some detached entity that has nothing to do with the people is fundamentally flawed. Government is reflection and function of society, which is created by people.
I'm afraid it is your vision of government that is fundamentally flawed, as centuries of war, totalitarianism, and genocides in Europe show.
In your libertarian/corporatist fantasy maybe, but in reality, it very much is my business, your business and everyone else's. As the parent correctly stated, corporations only exist because the government allows them to exist.
The right to private property is a fundamental right, both in the US and in Europe. Whether I create a corporation with other people or not is none of your business as long as we don't violate your negative rights. You can try to regulate it to some degree, but that hits practical and legal limits. On the other hand, the limits on liability of shareholders follow logically from the nature of corporations.
Your problem is that you live in a progressive/fascist fantasy world, in which people and rights only exist at the pleasure of the government. And, yes, that makes you the corporatist, not me.
The real issue here is this phrase from TFA: "one of a kind." That's not so good.
No, the real issue is that the environmentalist has already proven to be an anti-science moron, so nothing that he says is relevant. If you want to know what the model actually is, you have to look at it.
a one-of-a-kind scientific method developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and nicknamed âoeMonte Carlo,â
I don't think they're talking about the same thing
Did you read on?
Agency officials also defended the use of the Monte Carlo scientific method — also known as “probabilistic analysis” — saying it is more responsive to Florida variables by shielding people who consume large amounts of fish from the buildup of dangerous toxins.
The approach creates thousands of variables to calculate the health effects of being exposed to a lifetime of toxic chemicals by taking into consideration average body weight, drinking water consumption rate, fish and shellfish consumption rate, and the fat content of fish — important because fat absorbs most of the toxins in seafood.
So, the agency used an actual Monte Carlo method. It's not "one of a kind" and "Monte Carlo" is the correct technical term to refer to it, not a "nick name".
The way that the activist talked about the method means that he either is scientifically ignorant or simply dishonest. Take your pick.
The shareholders don't pay the CEO. The company pays both the shareholders and the CEO
The shareholders own the company. Every dollar that the company pays to the CEO is paid by every shareholder.
And the company - and for that matter the entire concept of ownership - is legal fiction created by Us The People. We have every right and duty to ensure our creations perform the purposes for which they were created, rather than run rampant or be perverted or looted by parasites.
A company is created by founders and shareholders. Unless you own a share in it, it's none of your business what it does.
CEO compensation needs to be cut drastically, because more money on the table just attracts the people who are good at taking more money OFF the table and into their pockets.
If you don't like what a CEO is paid, don't buy shares in the company.
If you don't own shares in the company, it's none of your business how much the owners (=shareholders) pay the CEO.
I suspect Yahoo (and HP) are examples of dysfunctional boards who thought they can help by hiring a rock start CEO, but had no idea where to find or recognize one.
Yes, and the right thing happened as a result: those companies lost value, and the shareholders foolish enough to hold on to their shares lost value. That's the way markets are supposed to work: you make good decisions, you get richer; you make poor decisions, you lose money. And the primary poor decision you can make is owning the wrong shares.
It's like how your mortgage rates are worse when your credit is bad; that is, when you can least afford it, because you already have credit problems, new credit becomes even more expensive.
Likewise, when your company is failing, if you want to retain your CEO or hire a new one, you have to pay them a lot of extra money, because running a failing company is a shitty job and most of these people could make enough money doing something more fun at another company.
“Monte Carlo gambling with our children’s safety is unacceptable,” said Marty Baum of Indian Riverkeeper, an environmental group based in Indian River County.
The Monte Carlo method is an extremely widely used, proven technique for solving complex optimization and estimation problems. For an environmentalist to make fun of the method like this simply means he is a Luddite with no understanding of science.
As for the raising of limits, without looking at the studies, it's hard to know for sure whether there is anything wrong with them, but the people who did the Monte Carlo simulations at least have some data to support their case. Most of these limits are so conservative that doubling or tripling them would not make any significant difference. Environmentalists may also well be right that increasing, say, benzene levels is motivated by making fracking easier, and that is OK. In the end, environmental regulations are tradeoffs between immediate health concerns and economic concerns, for the simple reason that bad economies kill even more predictably as environmental poisons.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the Clintons have abused their political office to enrich themselves massively is self-evident from their net worth and their control of the Clinton foundation. The fact that two smart lawyers controlling billions of dollars, with tons of connections and power, and with access to FBI and CIA files have been able to weasel out of being held legally responsible is hardly responsible.
Carr sounds like a grumpy old man and an attention whore. Fine, to each their own. It's a free country, he can join the Amish if he likes. Many others will buy and use the technology we enjoy.
If that's the way your software development processes work, you probably should get out of the software development business.
Simple: American companies don't employ the average Indian, they employ the best from among 1 billion Indians. Furthermore, the smartest Indians actually go into the tech field, whereas the smartest Americans generally do not. That's why the PISA scores are pretty much irrelevant.
The real question is why Ian Smith himself is here; after all, he seems to be an Australian immigrant. We sure as hell have enough lawyers to begin with, and anybody who asks stupid questions like he does clearly isn't even much of a lawyer. So, why don't we start by kicking him out?
During the Cold War, governments justified the same bullshit with other kinds of fear mongering. And while NSA spying on US citizens is certainly some cause for concern, economic and social policies represent far bigger infringements on our liberties: high taxes, regulations, restrictions on freedom of association, regulation of political speech, government-mandated monopolies, etc.
Your E-mail isn't secure in transit anyway, so using a "secure provider" really only helps with where your data is permanently archived; if you don't want it to be permanently archived on Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/Apple, just download it. Most clients can be set up to do that. If you really think GhostMail-like models give you something, you can always host an E-mail server on a virtual machine, or even more securely, on a RaspberryPi at home ("E-mail server in a closet", popularized by someone recently).
None of that is going to give you actual security. If you want that, you need to use end-to-end encryption with an E-mail client that supports that, and both ends of the conversation need to use it. There are plenty of those kinds of clients for pretty much any platform, so just look for those.
Hillary seems to have had no problem profiting from the information (and influence) she gained as a government employee, both in terms of donations to her "foundation" and in terms of speaking fees. But I suppose she just can do no wrong.
Again, so what? What point are you trying to make? As you point out, the tight regulations in Canada have led to an even higher concentration in the banking sector than in the US, therefore screwing over consumers even more and leading to even more monopolistic practices. The fact that monopolies and cartels can impose standards more effectively is little consolation, and if anything, more of an indication of a fundamental problem. In a healthy, competitive market, there is rarely a single, universal standard.
Translation: the Canadian government wants to be able to spy on its citizens easily.
Well, no. There are dozens of banks and hundreds of bank-like financial institutions in Canada. Furthermore, Canadian businesses tend to be less regulated than US businesses.
So, did you have a point you wanted to make?
No, blame the politicians and government regulators that have given banks monopolies.
You know those financial regulations that are supposed to protect you? They ensure that creating a new bank is harder and more expensive than a manned flight to the moon.
No regulatory oversight? LinkNYC is run according to NYC government rules, and the TOS that companies conform to whatever the NYC government allows them.
Furthermore, private companies, like everybody else, have a right to monitor public spaces, as well as private spaces that are ordinarily visible from their properties or private spaces. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way free societies work.
If you want privacy, pay for it. Don't complain that the free access you're getting is used for marketing.
We ask people to die from bullets in our wars. We ask people to die in car crashes for our entertainment on race tracks, and to deliver groceries. We ask people to die from experimental drugs they take as part of drug tests. We ask people to die from infections they acquire while nursing and healing the sick. We ask people to die from a lot of things.
And you know what? People say "yes", because many things in life are worth taking risks for.
Us space nutters prefer most work in space to be done robotically, with humans staying inside well-shielded habitats.
(Of course, us space nutters also believe that advances in stem cells, genetic engineering, and drugs will likely be able to address these effects, with no need for robotic surgery.)
Nevertheless, us space nutters would be willing to sacrifice a decade or two of life for the chance to go into space, explore, and contribute to human progress.
It's something Luddites and bourgeois sticks-in-the-mud like you will never understand.
Some certainly were. Some also were slave holders. Some were crooks. So, "the founding fathers were..." isn't something that is particularly convincing. Nevertheless, flawed as the founding fathers were, the Constitution they came up with is one of limited government and enumerated government powers, primarily national defense, international trade, and ensuring free trade among the states. Letting democratically elected governments make decisions about the private property of minorities was explicitly something the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
It's a "legal fiction" in the same sense that a "licensed taxi service" is a legal fiction. If you abolish taxi licensing, that doesn't mean that taxis go away, it means that you get more taxi-like services with a much wider range of terms of service. Likewise, if you abolish the legal fiction of corporations, it doesn't mean that people can't form corporations anymore, it means that they are less restricted in how they do so.
I'm afraid it is your vision of government that is fundamentally flawed, as centuries of war, totalitarianism, and genocides in Europe show.
The right to private property is a fundamental right, both in the US and in Europe. Whether I create a corporation with other people or not is none of your business as long as we don't violate your negative rights. You can try to regulate it to some degree, but that hits practical and legal limits. On the other hand, the limits on liability of shareholders follow logically from the nature of corporations.
Your problem is that you live in a progressive/fascist fantasy world, in which people and rights only exist at the pleasure of the government. And, yes, that makes you the corporatist, not me.
No, the real issue is that the environmentalist has already proven to be an anti-science moron, so nothing that he says is relevant. If you want to know what the model actually is, you have to look at it.
Did you read on?
So, the agency used an actual Monte Carlo method. It's not "one of a kind" and "Monte Carlo" is the correct technical term to refer to it, not a "nick name".
The way that the activist talked about the method means that he either is scientifically ignorant or simply dishonest. Take your pick.
The shareholders own the company. Every dollar that the company pays to the CEO is paid by every shareholder.
A company is created by founders and shareholders. Unless you own a share in it, it's none of your business what it does.
If you don't like what a CEO is paid, don't buy shares in the company.
If you don't own shares in the company, it's none of your business how much the owners (=shareholders) pay the CEO.
Yes, and the right thing happened as a result: those companies lost value, and the shareholders foolish enough to hold on to their shares lost value. That's the way markets are supposed to work: you make good decisions, you get richer; you make poor decisions, you lose money. And the primary poor decision you can make is owning the wrong shares.
It's like how your mortgage rates are worse when your credit is bad; that is, when you can least afford it, because you already have credit problems, new credit becomes even more expensive.
Likewise, when your company is failing, if you want to retain your CEO or hire a new one, you have to pay them a lot of extra money, because running a failing company is a shitty job and most of these people could make enough money doing something more fun at another company.
The Monte Carlo method is an extremely widely used, proven technique for solving complex optimization and estimation problems. For an environmentalist to make fun of the method like this simply means he is a Luddite with no understanding of science.
As for the raising of limits, without looking at the studies, it's hard to know for sure whether there is anything wrong with them, but the people who did the Monte Carlo simulations at least have some data to support their case. Most of these limits are so conservative that doubling or tripling them would not make any significant difference. Environmentalists may also well be right that increasing, say, benzene levels is motivated by making fracking easier, and that is OK. In the end, environmental regulations are tradeoffs between immediate health concerns and economic concerns, for the simple reason that bad economies kill even more predictably as environmental poisons.